![[2025] UKUT 162 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Mother’s response to the appeal
Mother’s response to the appeal
Mother did not wish to dispute Father’s appeal against the Crows Nest variation. She asked that the Upper Tribunal re-make the decision itself, rather than remitting it to the FTT for reconsideration. Her reasons for taking this position included (a) that there was a final hearing before the Family Court on 5 June 2025, which she did not want to be delayed (she felt there had already been considerable delay, and she had a very serious illness) and (b) her view that, in her circumstances, it would not make a difference to her Family Court case, if the child support maintenance calculation excluded the Crows Nest variation.
- Heading
- The decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of an error in point of law as respects the Crows Nest variation (as explained in the Reasons section below). However, the error was not mat
- The appeal to, and decision of, the FTT
- The grant of limited permission to appeal by the Upper Tribunal
- The SoS’s response to the appeal
- Mother’s response to the appeal
- Father’s applications
- Why I have determined the appeal, and Father’s applications, without a hearing
- Conclusions